Lengthy death-row appeals targeted

A.G., lawmakers want the state constitution amended

Published: Monday, June 15, 2009 12:03 a.m. MDT
 |  E-MAIL | PRINT | FONT + - 

Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff and some lawmakers want the state constitution changed to stop the Utah Supreme Court from delaying murderers' executions.

"We have won every battle," Fred Voros, chief of criminal appeals for the attorney general, told the Constitutional Revision Commission Thursday. Waving a list of the current murderers on death row, Voros said the state "wins at trial, we win on appeal. But we are losing the war" in trying to get properly convicted murderers executed in a timely manner. While Utah has the death penalty on the books, in reality it only has life without parole because of the high court's appeal procedures, Voros said.

Ronnie Lee Gardner, for example, has been sitting 23 years on death row, and still is not close to lethal injection.

But a number of members of the CRC, a group appointed by the governor and Legislature, clearly are uncomfortable with SJR14, a constitutional amendment on post-conviction appeals that passed the Senate last general session, but failed in the House.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Christine Durham, who sat on the CRC for 12 years, but is no longer on the commission, said Thursday that while she couldn't discuss specific death penalty cases, the high court is following the law and the constitution in its decisions.

Story continues below

Said Durham: "It is unnecessary and unwise" to pass an amendment like SJR14.

Several CRC members said that rather than achieving the laudable goal of fair capital punishment, SJR14 is severely flawed, really a legislative power-grab.

The CRC will study the issue over the summer and make a recommendation to the 2010 Legislature, which will likely take it up again. If it passes an amendment, that change will go before voters in November 2010.

At issue is whether the high court is strictly following a 1996 statute on post-conviction appeals or is allowing appeals based on common law, outside of that statute.

In short, the five Supreme Court justices say that only they can decide which appeals they hear, not the Legislature, critics of the high court argue.

Not so, said Durham. "It is my sense that" the Legislature wants "the court to make some kind of promise never to apply the constitution in a particular way. We can't do that." But the high court is definitely following the constitution in death penalty cases, she added.

At one point, former state Rep. Byron Harward, a CRC member, got into a debate with Tom Brunker, head of the attorney general's capital punishment appeal section, on whether the Supreme Court is overstepping its authority: "Yes it is," said Brunker. "No it isn't," said Harward, and back and forth for several seconds. "I guess we just disagree," said Brunker.

Comments

You can be the first to comment on this story.

previousnext

Latest comments

The back of the lot of the one house adjacent to the temple lot would be the...

Boys basketball rankings

I may not agree with your rankings, but your commentary is, "witty and wise!"...

Cave to be sealed with body inside

I think that the right decision was made. No more loss of life in rescue...

3 and out AGAIN!!! BYU can't run so far its only a matter of time Max gets...

hope there aren't any underlying problems between them as a husband and wife....

I'ts not sloan that keeps some biggies in the league not wanting to come...

Letters: No constitutional right

Once the leftist leaders have convinced ENOUGH of the population that...

I haven't been able to get this out of my mind. It truly is the stuff of...

9 bear cubs headed back to woods

Why is the division of wildlife releasing the cubs at this time of year? As...

BYU football: 5 keys to victory

Utah 73 BYU 0

Advertisements